A few questions on car insurance (for a couple)

Car_54

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

This is more of a curiosity than a practical question, but suppose you drive to a conference, a training course, or a business lunch/dinner/ Suppose this only happens once in a blue moon, and you can prove this because you are in London and your travelcard records show you commute by public transport every single day. What kind of insurance cover would be required to drive to these events? In most cases the only options I have seen are social only, or social and commuting to a single place of work. Driving to a conference is neither, but surely motorists cannot be required to buy specialist insurance if they drive to a conference once in a blue moon, or can they?
As I said before, we can all have our opinions, but since it's the courts, not us, deciding, it would be interesting to understand if there is any case law on this.

It won't be up to the courts if the insurer spells it out. My insurer (LV=) makes it pretty clear: "You're covered to drive to one single place of work if you choose 'Social, Domestic & Pleasure + Commuting' for your type of use.

If you have to travel to more than one place of work, or you're a travelling or commercial sales person for example, you'll need to let us know that your vehicle is used for business."

Gloomendoom

My employer recently warned staff that they need business use even if they want to drive from one part of the site to another during their working day. We also need to confirm We have business cover before we can claim travel expenses.

kmb500

I really don't know why anyone cares so much, just make sure everything is vaguely accurate and it'll be fine. What are the chances you'll have to make a claim anyway. At least that's the way I look at it. Not worth worrying about.

SouthLondonUser

Exactly, IF the insurer spells it out. Not all do. I have just reviewed my Aviva quote; Aviva has options that include "personal business use" and "employer's business use". While I am not sure I fully appreciate the difference between the two, it seems the cases I described would probably fall into one of the two.

Another example of what I had in mins is that there have been cases of insurers refusing to pay for a stolen vehicle because it was in a shared garage, but nowhere in the policy did it say it couldn't be shared. All I am saying is that insurers will go to great lengths not to pay, without fear of ridicule (a sticker is an undeclared modification which voids the insurance???) and that interpreting clauses is not always straightforward. Sometimes it is, but not always.

SouthLondonUser

kmb500 wrote: »

I really don't know why anyone cares so much, just make sure everyone is vaguely accurate and it'll be fine. What are the chances you'll have to make a claim anyway. At least that's the way I look at it. Not worth worrying about.

Like I said, it's a curiosity - not something I'm losing my sleep over.

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@facade, speeding is not comparable. A motorist caught speeding cannot prove whether it was the first time he did it, or the first time he was caught. We can prove how often we commute to work by public transport, because our travelcards (and, in my case, the records of the GPS tracker on my motorcycle) would very clearly show that we always commute by public transport or by motorcycle, not by car.

As for the insurance cover, it's not as black and white as you think it is. There would be an insurance contract in place. Interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract is for the courts. If the contract says: "social not commuting" and you commute every single day the interpretation is straightforward. If it says "social not commuting" and you drive to a conference, how "driving to a conference" shall be interpreted does not sound as straightforward to me.
For example, like I said there have been cases of insurers refusing to pay because motorists had undeclared stickers on their vehicles. I don't know how those cases ended.

Go and have a look on pepipoo.com. There is one active case on the front page now, where it is not going well for the driver because of alleged business use. Adding business use costs very little extra. The penalty for being found driving uninsured for the type of journey they are making - driving for commuting or business when you have SDP coverage is the same as having no insurance at all. It is an absolute offence that carries a lot of pain - higher insurance premiums and being turned down for car hire with mainstream car rental companies.

Mercdriver

kmb500 wrote: »

I really don't know why anyone cares so much, just make sure everything is vaguely accurate and it'll be fine. What are the chances you'll have to make a claim anyway. At least that's the way I look at it. Not worth worrying about.

The reason people care is that you can be stopped by the police and if they establish you are commuting or using the car for business use and your insurance doesn't cover it, they will give you 6 points and £300 fixed penalty. It's not just the risk of having a claim paid and the insurance cancelled, it's the very real risk of being stopped and prosecuted. It's not imaginary risk there are cases on pepipoo.

It seems it's not just box junctions and red light cameras that you know little about. What else don't you know? Do you at least know what you don't know?

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@facade, speeding is not comparable. A motorist caught speeding cannot prove whether it was the first time he did it, or the first time he was caught. We can prove how often we commute to work by public transport, because our travelcards (and, in my case, the records of the GPS tracker on my motorcycle) would very clearly show that we always commute by public transport or by motorcycle, not by car.

As for the insurance cover, it's not as black and white as you think it is. There would be an insurance contract in place. Interpreting the terms and conditions of the contract is for the courts. If the contract says: "social not commuting" and you commute every single day the interpretation is straightforward. If it says "social not commuting" and you drive to a conference, how "driving to a conference" shall be interpreted does not sound as straightforward to me.
For example, like I said there have been cases of insurers refusing to pay because motorists had undeclared stickers on their vehicles. I don't know how those cases ended.

Can you show sources for this or did you hear it from 'some bloke down the pub'? Doesn't sound all that plausible to me. Refusal to pay would have presumably been appealed against up to the Financial Ombudsman Service so it would be documented.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

There shouldn't be a debate. The insurers do make this quite clear on their web sites and also you are welcome to discuss it with them. The onus is on you to insure correctly.

The point of insurance is to cover the unexpected, so it is illogical to decide not to insure because you don't think you are going to have a problem - you don't insure if you decide you can cover the consequences. To be honest, I don't think that it is a worthwhile debate, because the principle of driving for business is reasonably well defined, and so the argument comes down to "I know I am breaking the terms of the insurance for a small saving, but do you think I can get away with it?" I am not convinced there was a significant additional cost, possibly none, and for me I think it was something like £5 - but it does depend on your job title as to how much risk they think is involved - and some of that risk is simply in mileage which they account for with that declaration of likely mileage that you make.

The main issue is not so much to do with the police, but if you do have an accident, the insurers will pay out for the third party but could then chose not to pay out for you and reclaim their losses for the third party. Given that this could run into many thousands of pounds, you have to decide whether the few pounds is worth the peace of mind, especially if you could not afford to cover the possible consequences.

Are you someone who goes abroad on holiday not taking out travel insurance because you are not likely to be ill or be in an accident?

SouthLondonUser

@Mercdriver, simply googling "car insurance modification stickers" will produce some results.
This specific case was mentioned multiple times by the press:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/11383692/Car-insurance-Vicar-told-Jesus-stickers-could-void-policy.html

Whether the press which mentioned it is any more trustworthy than the bloke down the pub, well, that's a separate matter! Jokes aside, I would like to know how the case ended up - I really do not know.

I understand that, in some cases, some modifications could be seen as a signal of a more dangerous behaviour. For example, I have crash protectors on my motorcycle, not because I want to race, but because I want to protect the bike, including should an idiot car driver reverse into it and cause it to drop while it's parked. However, I can understand how it could be associated to aggressive riding.

But stickers? That's simply ridiculous.

Oh, I also installed handlebar risers. They make the riding position more upright, less racing-like, so, if anything, they should signal less risk, not more, but some insurers still take a generalised approach that you must pay more for any modification. I also declared GPS holder and luggage. I cannot possibly think of a single reason why having GPS or luggage would alter the risk profile; if anything, luggage should be associated with less risky riding behaviour (you don't see luggage on racing bikes)! However, I have to protect myself from the possibility, however remote, that my insurer would use any excuse, however ridiculous, not to pay up.